You hear the public outcry over the burning of the Taliban fighters' bodies? That's right; there really isn't any. That's not to say the average American condones the practice. Even with the confusion about whether it was psyops or hygiene, people are repulsed by the notion of wantonly constructing a human bonfire. But what the experts had postured as Abu Gharib Redux has had all the impact of the E-Ring television series. And in this under-reaction lives yet another lesson in Just War Theory for the Bush administration.

I'm familiar with Aquinas, the Legalist Paradigm, and the Weinberger Doctrine. I know the legal definition of assault and what constitutes a threat. But until 2003 I'd never heard of “preemption” as a reason to go to war. Self-defense is a historically accepted reason to go to war. Presaging (and poorly at that) the future possibility of a justified response under the heading of self-defense is not -- or at least it wasn't until a couple of years ago.

But did the American public ever really buy the notion of preemption? I'll admit I had a little trouble with it. I'd spent two carrier deployments flying over southern Iraq ensuring that the status quo was maintained, and except for the occasional SAM that the locals lobbed to keep things from getting too boring, the vibe was pretty laid back. Heck, the most exciting part of the flights was the in-flight refueling from the Air Force tankers (and we weren't even over Iraq when we did that). So I took it as a personal failure that suddenly the beat my buddies and I had patrolled for years and years was an imminent threat to the American way of life. Boy, did we screw up. But, in our defense, we weren't intelligence experts. Those guys are smart . There's WMD in them hills, boys. Saddle ‘em up!

So when the Chem Rush turned out to be a bust, the impetus abruptly shifted from self-defense to the spreading of freedom. But what the administration didn't understand was that forcibly spreading freedom comes with certain protocols not found in your garden variety “you attacked us now we're going to kick your butt” type of war like the one in Afghanistan. Spreading freedom is tricky; it's about winning hearts and minds -- touchy-feely stuff, the sort of topic an expert lectures you about at an off-site (after your company makes you buy his book, of course). When you're in the spreading freedom mode you can still kick butt; you just have to be more considerate about it. Humiliating prisoners is just plain inconsiderate.

Just how much Americans cared about Abu Gharib was evinced by the surest of barometers: CNN booked Brigadier General “Don't Blame Me” Karpinski on Larry King Live for two weeks straight (or so it seemed). And the Army listened, too, and exclusively hammered Private Lynndie England, the mastermind behind the scandal.

Unfortunately for the neocons, spreading freedom is more chess than football; it also demands a shedding of whatever arrogance might be left over from the self-defense war, the one that had that definitive closure -- which reminds me: I used to think that the "excellence without arrogance" motto was soft, the stuff of the mid-90s PC wave. In fact, when I taught at the Naval Academy a few years ago, I found “Excellence Without Arrogance” posters all over the place. They bugged me, enough that I started to tell my midshipmen that arrogance was okay as long as it came with excellence.

I was wrong. I think what I meant by "arrogance" was actually "confidence" or "brio" or something like that.  I'd even allow "cocky."  I want my leaders and heroes to have a swagger, but that swagger shouldn't be vindictive. In some cases, arrogance is overcompensation for the underlying doubt about being right. Arrogance is the touchdown celebration with Sharpies, cell phones, and pre-planned dance moves. Arrogance can overwhelm the meek and apathetic -- but not forever. They'll figure it out. (They have figured it out.)

Americans accept that war is an ugly business; they just want the nation to play by the rules, the rules that we put into effect. They know the difference between Baghdad and Bagram. In fact, the only public outcry heard in the wake of the most recent videotaped revelation in Afghanistan was, “Taliban? They're still around?”

Americans are smarter than the administration thinks they are, and the public's reaction to the conduct of war -- conduct shown via videotape, digital photos, or whatever -- is a good litmus test for the fundamental justification for going to war. The administration should listen to the people. The people will get us out of this.